What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4996608?

The tribunal order states: Angel Rose Bud Taylor must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 4996608?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $96.45 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.94 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $257.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,867.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4996608?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4996608?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11071989-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

What was the outcome of Tenancy Tribunal case 4996608?

The tribunal order states: Angel Rose Bud Taylor must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities

How much money was awarded in case 4996608?

Cleaning: $400.00 awarded to landlord; Lawns and Garden Work: $96.45 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $350.94 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $257.00 awarded to landlord; Rubbish Removal: $1,867.44 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4996608?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4996608?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11071989-Tenancy_Tribunal_Order.pdf.

52D Boundary Road, Opaheke, Papakura 2113 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4996608 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4996608 — net $2,971.83 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$96.45	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$1,867.44	Rubbish removal
Interior repairs	$350.94	Interior repairs
Cleaning	$400.00	Cleaning
Ranch slider repairs	$257.00	Ranch slider repairs
Net award	$2,971.83
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,971.83

Order

Angel Rose Bud Taylor must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $2,971.83 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not. I am satisfied that the Tenant was aware of the hearing. She was sent a Notice of Hearing on 29 October 2024 and a reminder message on 11 November 2024. I therefore proceeded without the Tenant.
The Tenant has vacated the tenancy, and the Landlord seeks compensation for costs incurred during and after the tenancy. The law
The compensation claimed relates to cleaning and damage to the premises. Different legal considerations apply to both, and I will begin by summarising the relevant law I must apply.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (section 45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises at the end of the tenancy: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
With any claim from a landlord for compensation for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. The evidence
The premises were brand-new and in excellent condition at the beginning of the tenancy. The premises were not in that condition at the end of the tenancy. The evidence presented by the Landlord shows, among other things: (a)holes in interior walls; (b)a hole in a door; (c)a damaged area of plasterboard where an attachment (a towel rail or toilet paper holder) appears to have been forcibly detached from the wall; (d)numerous marks (including what appears to be a child’s scribbles) on interior walls; (e)dirty carpets; (f)long grass and extensive weed growth in the yard; and (g)several items of the Tenant’s personal belongings, including furniture, bedding, pushchairs, a trampoline and a child’s slide were left at the premises when the Tenant vacated.
The Landlord seeks to recover the reasonable costs it has incurred in returning the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. In support of its claim, the Landlord provided photographs that demonstrate the condition of the premises before and after the Tenancy. I accept those photographs as evidence of the condition of the premises at the relevant times.
The Landlord also provided a “Maintenance Work Order Details” document. The Landlord advises that this document was prepared by Spotless, which provides cleaning and repair services to the Landlord, and sets out all the costs incurred at the premises following the end of the tenancy. I accept this document as an accurate record of the costs incurred by the Landlord.
The Landlord also wants to recover the cost of replacing the glass on a ranch slider in April 2024. The Landlord has supplied a photograph that shows the ranch slider glass was broken as alleged and an invoice for the replacement of the glass. That invoice is for $1,172.54, but the Landlord only seeks to recover $257 of that cost. The Tribunal’s assessment
Considering the relevant evidence, particularly the photographs, the invoice for the glass replacement and the Maintenance Work Order Details document, I find that the Landlord is entitled to recover nearly all the repair, rubbish removal and lawn mowing costs sought.
The damage to the interior of the premises and the ranch slider occurred during the tenancy and was not fair wear and tear. The onus then sits with the Tenant to prove the damage was not careless or intentional damage, and she has not done so. I have not heard from the Tenant because she did not attend the hearing, and in my assessment, the nature of the damage to the walls, door and ranch slider claimed means it is most likely intentional damage, so the Tenant is liable for the full cost of those repairs.
In terms of the rubbish removal and lawn work, the Tenant had left a significant amount of property behind, and the grounds were in an untidy state. That work was all required to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition and the cost incurred was reasonable, so the Tenant is also liable for the full cost incurred by the Landlord.
The Landlord also sought $678.61 to clean the whole house. The evidence does not show that the whole house required cleaning. The photographs provided show that parts of the house were untidy and/or unclean, but not the whole house. I therefore award $400 to the Landlord for cleaning costs. I consider that would be a fair contribution on the evidence before me.
The Landlord initially sought to recover the cost of cleaning the stove and oven. It abandoned that aspect of its claim during the hearing on the grounds that the photographs provided did not show that the stove or oven required the cleaning claimed. The Landlord also abandoned its claim to recover the cost of repairing damage to a ranch slider in September 2023, as the evidence provided did not show any clear damage at that time.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4996608 — net $2,971.83 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Lawns and Garden work	$96.45	Lawns and Garden work
Rubbish removal	$1,867.44	Rubbish removal
Interior repairs	$350.94	Interior repairs
Cleaning	$400.00	Cleaning
Ranch slider repairs	$257.00	Ranch slider repairs
Net award	$2,971.83
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,971.83

Order

Angel Rose Bud Taylor must pay Kāinga Ora–Homes And Communities $2,971.83 immediately, calculated as shown in the table below:

Reasons

The Landlord attended the hearing. The Tenant did not. I am satisfied that the Tenant was aware of the hearing. She was sent a Notice of Hearing on 29 October 2024 and a reminder message on 11 November 2024. I therefore proceeded without the Tenant.
The Tenant has vacated the tenancy, and the Landlord seeks compensation for costs incurred during and after the tenancy. The law
The compensation claimed relates to cleaning and damage to the premises. Different legal considerations apply to both, and I will begin by summarising the relevant law I must apply.
The Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) requires that the landlord provide the premises to the tenant at the start of the tenancy in a reasonable state of cleanliness (section 45(1)(a)), and there is an equivalent obligation on the tenant to return the premises at the end of the tenancy: ...in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition, and remove or arrange for the removal from the premises of all rubbish.
With any claim from a landlord for compensation for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541. The evidence
The premises were brand-new and in excellent condition at the beginning of the tenancy. The premises were not in that condition at the end of the tenancy. The evidence presented by the Landlord shows, among other things: (a)holes in interior walls; (b)a hole in a door; (c)a damaged area of plasterboard where an attachment (a towel rail or toilet paper holder) appears to have been forcibly detached from the wall; (d)numerous marks (including what appears to be a child’s scribbles) on interior walls; (e)dirty carpets; (f)long grass and extensive weed growth in the yard; and (g)several items of the Tenant’s personal belongings, including furniture, bedding, pushchairs, a trampoline and a child’s slide were left at the premises when the Tenant vacated.
The Landlord seeks to recover the reasonable costs it has incurred in returning the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition. In support of its claim, the Landlord provided photographs that demonstrate the condition of the premises before and after the Tenancy. I accept those photographs as evidence of the condition of the premises at the relevant times.
The Landlord also provided a “Maintenance Work Order Details” document. The Landlord advises that this document was prepared by Spotless, which provides cleaning and repair services to the Landlord, and sets out all the costs incurred at the premises following the end of the tenancy. I accept this document as an accurate record of the costs incurred by the Landlord.
The Landlord also wants to recover the cost of replacing the glass on a ranch slider in April 2024. The Landlord has supplied a photograph that shows the ranch slider glass was broken as alleged and an invoice for the replacement of the glass. That invoice is for $1,172.54, but the Landlord only seeks to recover $257 of that cost. The Tribunal’s assessment
Considering the relevant evidence, particularly the photographs, the invoice for the glass replacement and the Maintenance Work Order Details document, I find that the Landlord is entitled to recover nearly all the repair, rubbish removal and lawn mowing costs sought.
The damage to the interior of the premises and the ranch slider occurred during the tenancy and was not fair wear and tear. The onus then sits with the Tenant to prove the damage was not careless or intentional damage, and she has not done so. I have not heard from the Tenant because she did not attend the hearing, and in my assessment, the nature of the damage to the walls, door and ranch slider claimed means it is most likely intentional damage, so the Tenant is liable for the full cost of those repairs.
In terms of the rubbish removal and lawn work, the Tenant had left a significant amount of property behind, and the grounds were in an untidy state. That work was all required to return the premises to a reasonably clean and tidy condition and the cost incurred was reasonable, so the Tenant is also liable for the full cost incurred by the Landlord.
The Landlord also sought $678.61 to clean the whole house. The evidence does not show that the whole house required cleaning. The photographs provided show that parts of the house were untidy and/or unclean, but not the whole house. I therefore award $400 to the Landlord for cleaning costs. I consider that would be a fair contribution on the evidence before me.
The Landlord initially sought to recover the cost of cleaning the stove and oven. It abandoned that aspect of its claim during the hearing on the grounds that the photographs provided did not show that the stove or oven required the cleaning claimed. The Landlord also abandoned its claim to recover the cost of repairing damage to a ranch slider in September 2023, as the evidence provided did not show any clear damage at that time.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4996608 — Property damage at 52D Boundary Road, Opaheke, Papakura 2113

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4996608 — Property damage at 52D Boundary Road, Opaheke, Papakura 2113

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions